Judgment :- The writ petitioner, a Trade Union has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent bearing Registration No.R1/15/92, dated 30.11.1992 and quash the same and direct the third respondent to consider the claim of the workers of the petitioner Union mentioned in Annexure to the affidavit for absorption and regularization according to laws with all attendant benefits. 2. Heard Mr. N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General for Mr.R.Natarajan, appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Karthick, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. With the consent of counsel for either side the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal when the Miscellaneous Petitions were listed. 3. The writ petitioner Union representing the 32 workmen has filed the present writ petition. According to the petitioner, the petitioner-Union is espousing the cause of 32 members who are engaged in the sweeping, cleaning and scavenging in the Regional Office of the Indian Oil Corporation, Southern Region, at No.139,Nungambakkam High Court, Chennai-34. The respondent is a Government of India Undertaking. The respondent-IOC was initially locatd in a rental building and then shifted to their own building at No.139, Nungambakkam High Court, Chennai-34. Permanent sweepers engaged in sweeping, cleaning and scavenging in the rented building were assigned other works. Hence, IOC has to engage fresh hands for sweeping and cleaning and the IOC resorted to entrust the job to the 4th respondent, who is a contractor. However, IOC has a complete control over such contract labourers. The contractor was paid service charge alone. Since March 1983 onwards, the contract labourers are continuously doing their duties without any break and IOC did not take any steps either to treat them as casual employees or to regularise them. 4. After completing 480 days, the petitioner Union addressed IOC demanding absorption of the workers and to discontinue the contract labour system, which representation was followed by further memorandum dated 11.2.1986. As soon as the memorandum was submitted IOC with a view to defeat the interest of the workers called for interview from outside candidates for selection to the Post of sweepers and scavengers and decided to disband the services of the contract labourers, who were continuously employed from 1983. An interview was conducted on 1.3.1986. As soon as the memorandum was submitted IOC with a view to defeat the interest of the workers called for interview from outside candidates for selection to the Post of sweepers and scavengers and decided to disband the services of the contract labourers, who were continuously employed from 1983. An interview was conducted on 1.3.1986. At that stage the petitioner-Union field writ petition No:2116 of 1986 for mandamus directing to continue the services of the said workers, regularise and confirm the workers as permanent employees. This court granted interim injunction on 14.3.1986 and it was made absolute on 1.7.1987. The contract between IOC and the contractor was renewed from time to time and the contractor remained only as a figure head, while the ultimate control over the workers rested only with the IOC. The workers worked for more than 365 days which is established by various documents,besides IOC collects Employees Provident Fund Contribution directly and remit the same as well as contributed Employer's contribution in respect of the 32 workers. 5. The earlier writ petition was contested by IOC. In the earlier Writ Petitoin S.S.Subramani,J., while following the earlier judgement of this court reported in 1995 (1) LLN page 683 to which Indian Oil Corporation was a party, allowed the writ petition holding that engagement of contract labour in the job of sweeping, cleaning, dusting etc., is prohibited under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and abolition) Act, and the respondent-IOC was directed to treat the petitioners listed therein as casual employees even though they were engaged through contractors. 6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by S.S.Subramani,J., the Indian Oil Corporation preferred Writ Appeal before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench while following the earlier pronouncement of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Thereafter IOC moved the Supreme Court and a larger Bench of the Apex Court allowed the Civil Appeal preferred by the IOC and set aside the judgments of the Division Bench as well as Single Judge. The said pronouncement has since been reported in 2001 (7) SCC page 1 = 2001(1) LLJ 1087 (SAIL Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others). 7. The said pronouncement has since been reported in 2001 (7) SCC page 1 = 2001(1) LLJ 1087 (SAIL Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others). 7. Though there is some controversy with respect to certain facts regarding engagement of contract labourers by the respondent and the claim that the contract labourers is only a camouflage and that workers are direct employees as they have been controlled and supervised by the respondent-IOC itself, besides pointing out that the very allotment of work is only given by IOC and not by the contractor, this court will not be justified in examining all those controversies. Mr.Karthick, learned counsel for the respondent-IOC though filed a detailed counter fairly drew the attention of this court to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in SAIL Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others reported in 2001 (2) LLJ 1087 and in particular to paragraphs 119 and 120, besides pointing out that identical directions and in particular sub-para (5) of para 119 of the Apex Court in the said case be issued in this writ petition. 8. Though the learned Advocate General sought to advance many contentions, in the light of the fair stand taken by the respondent, it may not be necessary to advert to or consider all of them. 9. Concedingly, since 1983 onwards, the 32 workmen whose names find a place in the writ petition have been continuously engaged without any break in scavenging and cleaning the respondent-IOC at its Regional Office. If after Twenty years, the petitioners are thrown out, or if the respondent engage a different set of workers, it will be a total deprivation of the livelihood of the workers who are being engaged as scavengers or sweepers. The 32 workers belong to the poor strata of society and without much education or background. If they are to be thrown out at this stage, they will face extinction and their families would have to suffer. It is rather unfortunate that such a situation has been created by the long drawn litigation between the parties. There has been a change of views and this has further aggravated the position of the workers. However, Mr.Karthick, learned counsel for the respondent-IOC took a stand that the respondent-IOC will consider the petitioners for appointment if IOC decides to call for candidates from Employment Exchange and the petitioners will be given preference. 10. There has been a change of views and this has further aggravated the position of the workers. However, Mr.Karthick, learned counsel for the respondent-IOC took a stand that the respondent-IOC will consider the petitioners for appointment if IOC decides to call for candidates from Employment Exchange and the petitioners will be given preference. 10. In my considered view, the said offer is a half hearted offer and it is neither fair, nor it is a reasonable one, which a Public Sector Undertaking would take. Being a Public Sector Undertaking, it has to act reasonably and fairly and IOC on mere technicalities has lost of the human problem of 32 scavengers, who engaged themselves in keeping the IOC Office and latrines clean for the past Twenty long years. 11. Mr.Karthick, learned counsel for the respondent persuaded this court to just follow the following directions of the Apex Court in SAIL's case. Sub para (5) of para 119 of the SAIL Judgement reads thus: "119(5). On issuance of prohibition notificatio nunder Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contract or has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularise the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6." 12. It is not known as to how the same contractor continues. That apart, the contractor has filed a counter disowning the very contract itself. Therefore it is clear that the petitioners have been engaged continuously and directly under the control of the IOC by its subordinates. However, this being a disputed question, this court will not be justified in proceeding on that premise. That apart, the contractor has filed a counter disowning the very contract itself. Therefore it is clear that the petitioners have been engaged continuously and directly under the control of the IOC by its subordinates. However, this being a disputed question, this court will not be justified in proceeding on that premise. But, at the same time, substantial justice has to be rendered and that too in respect of the poor downtrodden who have been working for the past Twenty years as sweepers and scavengers in the respondent's IOC Regional Office. 13. Attention of this court was drawn to the later pronouncement of the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Vs. K.V.Shramik Sangh and others reported in 2002 (4) SCC 609 , where Shivaraj V.Patil,J., speaking for the Bench after following the SAIL case and in particular in terms of para 119(5) of the Constitution Bench directed the workers to go before the State Government or the Industrial Adjudicator as the case may be seeking appropriate remedies while ordering maintenance of status quo regarding the employment of the contract labourers as indicated in the judgement. Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General persuades this court to issue identical directions besides directing the respondent-IOC to give priority in the employment of 32 workmen whose names find place and continue to work as sweepers and scavengers in respondent-IOC Regional Office, Chennai and any other course will seriously prejudice the workers. There is no controversy with respect to list of workers as the respondent IOC has been maintaining records continuously. 14. Mr.K.Karthick, learned counsel for the respondent-IOC pointed out that it is well open to the petitioners to go before the competent Tribunal in terms of Clause 5 of para 119 of the Apex Court judgement in SAIL case. It is true that it is always open to the workers to proceed and work out their remedies. But how long the sweepers an scavengers could afford to fight with the mighty Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India namely IOC. They have already fought the litigation since 1986 onwards, for the past 16 years with the help of Union, which has rightly and sincerely taken up the cause of poor scavengers. Yet, they could not get what they want, namely regularization. 15. They have already fought the litigation since 1986 onwards, for the past 16 years with the help of Union, which has rightly and sincerely taken up the cause of poor scavengers. Yet, they could not get what they want, namely regularization. 15. Being a Government of India Undertaking, the respondent should always strive to act fairly and reasonably and shall not try to defeat the legitimate rights of the poor scavengers who have been working in the IOC, maintain the rest rooms and the office of the Indian Oil Corporation, Regional Office at Madras by scavenging, cleaning or sweeping as the case may be. If the 32 workers are to be thrown out it will result in deprivation of their livelihood after spending valuable part of their life in sweeping and scavenging in the respondent's office. The requirement of scavenging and sweeping is a perennial requirement and such jobs are being performed ideally by the poor and the downtrodden like the 32 workers. 16. Taking into consideration of the contentions advanced by either side while following the Apex Court judgements referred above, in the light of the stand taken by the counsel for the respondent-IOC and various findings as recorded by S.S.Subramani,J., in the earlier writ petition, this court in the interest of justice to enforce Art.21 and to give effect to the directive principles of The Constitution, instead of directing the workers to once again go before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, and litigate for another decade, issue the following directions:- (i) The respondent-IOC shall continue to engage the 32 workers whose names find a place in the Annexure to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and their engagement shall be uninterrupted till their services are regularised or absorbed; (ii) The respondent-IOC before calling for nomination from the Employment Exchange shall regularise the 32 workmen and being cleaning and sweeping for which no special qualification or experience is required, shall appoint the 32 persons in the order of seniority of their engagement as seen from the Provident Fund and ESI contributions and registers maintained, absorb the 32 persons from the date of absorption as new entrants on the minimum scale of pay fixed for such posts in the respondent-Corporation. The respondent shall pass orders of regulations within three months; (iii)The respondent-IOC need not resort to Employment Exchange to fill up the posts of Sweepers, Scavengers, Cleaners till all the 32 workmen are regularsied or absorbed or appointed on a regular basis as scavengers, sweepers or cleaners for whose benefit the writ petition is filed and no action shall be taken in this respect under the provisions of The Employment Exchange Compulsory Notification Act or the Rules framed thereunder, which direction is issued with a view to safeguard IOC from such action and to render substantial justice; and (iv) For the purpose of gratuity and pension, the service rendered earlier by the workers from the date of their initial engagement shall be counted and such terminal benefits shall be worked out and paid to the workers at the time of their reaching the age of superannuation on that basis, but while reckoning future service from the date of absorption or regularization, as the case may be in respect of other service benefits. 17. In the above terms, the writ petition is ordered. For any reason, the 32 workers are not satisfied with the above directions, it is well open to them to go before the concerned Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, and seek for appropriate remedy, if they are so advised. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. The parties shall bear their respective costs.